Labor courts cannot reject a settlement just because they feel they lack jurisdiction
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Federal and state authorities must respect and guarantee the right of access to non-judicial justice by processing them effectively, within their legal powers.
Official heading (Spanish): MECANISMOS ALTERNATIVOS DE SOLUCIÓN DE CONTROVERSIAS. LAS AUTORIDADES FEDERALES Y ESTATALES DEBEN RESPETAR Y GARANTIZAR EL DERECHO DE ACCESO A LA JUSTICIA NO JURISDICCIONAL A TRAVÉS DE SU TRAMITACIÓN EFECTIVA, CONFORME A SUS COMPETENCIAS LEGALES.
The ruling
Employees and their employer asked a labor court to approve a salary reduction agreement. The court rejected it, reasoning the Conciliation Center was competent. The Collegiate Circuit Court held that authorities must effectively process the alternative mechanisms recognized in article 17 of the Constitution; if they deem themselves incompetent, they must say so with reasons and refer the matter to the competent authority.
Our take
For companies negotiating adjustments with their workforce, this avoids a dead end: filing a settlement and getting a flat rejection. The court must now process it or refer it. The court also notes that the Conciliation Centers' role in the pre-trial stage does not exclude the labor courts' role in non-contentious proceedings. Our view: the precedent protects the parties' autonomy, but it does not validate the agreement's content. A salary reduction will still be closely scrutinized, so the agreement should be well supported on cause, duration and informed consent.
What to do
- If a court rejects a settlement for lack of jurisdiction, challenge it and demand referral to the competent authority.
- Decide in advance whether to file the agreement with the Conciliation Center or as a non-contentious proceeding.
- Document the cause, duration and each employee's consent in salary reduction agreements.
Details
- Court
- Collegiate Circuit Court
- Type
- Isolated precedent
- Identifier
- (I Región)1o.1 K (12a.)
- Digital registry
- 2032565
- Published
- August 28, 2026
- Area
- Amparo and constitutional
- View official source ↗
Does this ruling affect your company? Let’s talk.
Schedule a conversationOther precedents in the same area
Prepared by Artegia for information only; not legal advice. Headings in English are unofficial translations. The official text is the one published in the Semanario Judicial de la Federación or the TFJA journal.